Talk:The Six Million Dollar Man (1973)
Really a pilot? This may be a controversial thing to say, but I wonder if we can shore up the claim that this thing was a pilot. My admittedly cursory examination leads me to think is that it was just another movie-of-the-week on The ABC Wednesday Movie of the Week. It may be that we all just assume it's the pilot simply because it's the first. Do we actually have verifiable proof that it was made with the intent of sparking a series? I kinda think Darren McGavin and Martin Balsam's absence from subsequent productions might betray the fact that the film's producers didn't get the actors under contract, because there wasn't a perceived need to do so. I mean, seriously: why would you not want those two guys under contract? I love 'em, but Anderson and Oppenheimer just weren't of the same caliber as McGavin and Balsam, back then. The fact that the other two pre-series movies were actually moved to ABC Suspense Theater — a wheel series used as a staging grounds for many other concepts that eventually made it to series — makes me lean towards believing Wine, Women and War was the actual series pilot. This thing has always felt entirely incongruous to me, in the same way that the M*A*S*H movie is obviously a different take on the same source material than the pilot of the M*A*S*H TV series. Anyone got deeper insight into those very early days of SMDM? CzechOut ☎ | 13:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC) :Interesting supposition -- one that would be fun to research. The only problem is that we first must decide what constitutes a pilot. Intent or series? And I'm afraid even television execs wouldn't be able to agree on that one. My personal opinion is that both work. So even if the subsequent movies and series were not planned, I would consider the first movie a pilot, ex post facto. — Paul (talk) 13:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC) ::Another reason to consider this thing separate from the series is its completely different production arrangement. Harve Bennett and Glen Larson weren't attached at this point; neither was it is "produced in association with Silverton Productions, Inc." Larson didn't come in until "WWW" and Bennett and Silverton, not until "Population, Zero". It was, like most movies that spawn subsequent series, a production literally unto itself. CzechOut ☎ | 22:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC) :::Just to play the devil's advocate here: the whole policy behind making all these "Movies of the Week" was to provide fertile ground for the network's larger efforts. They added directly to the bottom line, but they also kept a stable of talent employed by the network who could then be tapped for other projects, or as in "The Six Million Dollar Man" and others, if successful the property could be developed as a series. This notion was always a part of keeping these MOTWs going. :::Certainly, you can see the production edging towards series in the latter two telefilms. The fact that the original telefilm was not developed in such a way that if it was unsuccessful Universal would have egg on its face is to their credit. The complete change in cast and crew is a red flag, but it could just mean that the studio didn't want to pay McGavin and Balsam's rate, and perhaps they were unhappy with Richard Irving/ Howard Rodman. The "vibe" changed enough with WWW that it's clearly quite deliberate, and then the course reversal in Pop:Zero, with Steve a little less debonaire and more his old self from the original telefilm, says to me that the execs decided to take things in the "Bond" direction, but audiences clamored for a return of the "down-to-earth" Steve. I remember being glad for this when Pop:Zero debuted. :::So, in a sense, even if Wine, Women and War was more connected to the series from a production standpoint, the original formed more of a template for the character of Steve. Does that make it a pilot? Maybe not, but to disinclude The Six Million Dollar Man when talking pilots makes no sense. Admitting that the landscape here is complex is probably the best we can do-Major Sloan 19:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC) ::::Having now read The Bionic Book, I would be inclined to no longer consider WWW and SGK as pilots, since the book includes a TV Guide ad that refers to the showing of one of the films as "a new series". And back in 1973 there were a number of shows on the air that ran with monthly 90-minute episodes such as Columbo, etc. And had the network not decided to repurpose SMDM as a weekly series, the monthly telefilms probably would have continued through the 73-74 season. However there is no doubt SMDM was considered a pilot; even if you don't take sources like The Bionic Book into account, the ending had all the features that were required of pilots -- namely the "you did a good job and we'll be working again" sort of statements. I've seen telefilms that weren't intended to become series, yet still spawned series, but SMDM didn't seem to fit the pattern. 23skidoo 15:56, 13 April 2008 (EDT) :::::I would say at this point, having spent quite some time digesting all the elements over the past year-and-a-half, that the first telefilm is akin to Star Trek's "The Cage," ie a pilot that got neither a yes nor a no: it got a "Let do this, but differently." Wine, Women and War was certainly the pilot for the monthly series of Suspense Movies, which was intended to be ongoing beyond SGK (there we agree). The Solid Gold Kidnapping is not a pilot in any sense, it's simply the second installment in a series that got half-cancelled in favor of a weekly one hour series. Is Population: Zero the weekly series pilot? While certainly the series premiere, the word pilot connotes a production separated from series production by a delay for approval. By all indications, production continued without interruption for the 13 Season One episodes; indeed there could hardly have been a delay between the telefilms and Pop:Zero. :::::For the purposes of a database such as this, there is a diminishing return when it comes to subdividing categories endlessly, so the Pilot Telefilms umbrella still makes the most sense on a practical level for all three 1973 Telefilms (I suppose replacing the word "Pilot" with the year would be an alternate). Accuracy must vie with Occam's Razor to an extent when structuring these things: with only 6 telefilms, more than 2 groupings starts to clutter the site interface without adding much value. The Pilot Telefilms article has enough meat on these matters to satisfy most "purists," IMHO, and I certainly am one myself ;-) --Major Sloan 21:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC) ::::::After your final thought, Joe, I find myself swaying away from my initial response to this thread. It's so easy as fans to fall into "retro-thinking" when structuring this database. Syndication being our only companion for so many years didn't help matters. My constant vigil with his wiki is to maintain the source material's sense of time. I'm not saying that we are not a retrospective database -- we most certainly are -- but he benefit of hindsight should enrich and inform our encyclopedia, not dominate it. Our DECONSTRUCTED sections were made for the hardcore retro-examinations, anyway. And for all intents and purposes, that first movie was simply an adaptation of Caidin's book -- nothing more. It was unique. We should preserve that. At the very least, I agree that a name change is in order. What was it called specifically? A "TV Movie?" A "Movie of the Week?" We should give it its due. Or simply, The Six Million Dollar Man (1973) as you suggest. — Paul (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC) ::::::::It was a "pilot" in the conventional sense of the term but not literal. Pilots that do well in the ratings almost always go directly to series. That's not what happened here, despite the initial boffo ratings. In fact, it only went to series after the telefims did steadily worse in the Nielsens. Had ABC not been in dire need of a mid-season replacement in January of '74, it's hard to imagine that we would have seen much more of Steve Austin after The Solid Gold Kidnapping.--Valor 17:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC) :::::::::Gotta disagree about the impetus to series from Movie of the Week, Valor. The show did go to series immediately – a monthly series. Robert Prince at Universal gave the ball to Glen Larson to make the property into a James Bond knockoff, which was done. If the Suspense Movies had been hits, they IMHO would have continued. The problem was, that people didn't like the Bond take on the show, missing the less flippant, more folksy Steve from the MOTW, so the Suspense Movies got yanked from production. The goodwill from the original telefilm (and good ratings) were still there motivating the reboot into a weekly. The Suspense Movies were viewed as the "wrong" take on a good property. Don't forget the novel was bestselling. I don't believe the plug was so close to being pulled at the end of '73. :::::::::Paul: The original Telefilm was ABC's Wednesday Movie of The Week(Intro) I would support calling it "The Six Million Dollar Man (1973)," which is how I have it labelled in my personal collection. "1973 Telefilms" could be a replacement for the Pilot Telefilms category. At least we don't have the Happy Days origin as an episode of "Love, American Style." Don't envy that wiki.--Major Sloan 00:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC) ::::::::::I'm on board with that. Although -- and you're going to hate this -- can we change the category to simply 1973 Movies? It's evident that you're fond of the term telefilm as you've never adopted my original movies term. But I'm old-school when it comes to this stuff, and to me, a movie is a movie is a movie, whether it's theatrical or made-for-TV. Telefilm is still too recent for my taste. — Paul (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC) ::::::::::::Never heard of Robert Prince. Did you mean Frank Price? To call the 90-minute movies a monthly "series" is extraordinarily generous. TV series are weekly events, not monthly. And unless we're talking about a summer break, most TV shows don't go months on end before airing a new episode, as was the case with Six Mill. The fact remains that ABC needed something to replace Room 222, which had cratered in the ratings and was ultimately canceled in late 1973. Six Mill wasn't promoted due to merit or the strength of the last two telefilms, but rather desperation. To his credit, Harve Bennett had sense enough to resuscitate Caidin's vision of the character.--Valor 06:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC) :::::::::::::I've been trying to find my copy of the Bionic Book ever since my move, still no success. It's my second copy, so I really don't want to buy a third. Robert Prince was a Universal executive, Glen Larson was quoted in the book as to who gave him the job, I can't look it up now, sorry. The monthly series is referenced in print in this ad; I didn't make it up. :-) Absolutely Six was not promoted on the strength of the Larson movies; the original was a hit, two and three were considered poor exploitation of an otherwise good property, and Harve the wunderkind was the man to "save" it. The original Movie of the Week gave them the confidence that there was a rabbit in that hat, if only Harve Bennett could pull it out. I would support a "1973 TV Movies" article instead of "1973 Telefilms", Paul, since TV Movies was the contemporary term. Telefilms is an "upscale" term that gives them the respect I'd like to give them, YMMV.--Major Sloan 19:56, October 23, 2009 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::I consulted my copy of the book. Larson definitely references Frank Price. No mention of a "Robert Prince" in any of the chapters. Sometimes, the mind plays tricks.--Valor 19:10, October 24, 2009 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::I shot from the hip, then I moved and couldn't do anything about it. A rose by any other name… there was no other source. I believe the point I was making, that Larson was told to do "The Bond thing" by a higher-up at the studio, still flies. Thanks for looking that up--Major Sloan 19:40, October 24, 2009 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::I figured out who Robert Prince was. I knew it wasn't just made up! Still can't find my BB.--Major Sloan 01:36, January 27, 2010 (UTC) When did Balsam record his voiceover? An anonymous IP changed a paragraph to indicate that Balsam recorded his voiceover after the series finished production. Can anyone back this up? I don't remember seeing this referenced in the Bionic Book, but I might have missed it. (If the IP user wants to chime in here, please feel free! 23skidoo 16:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC) :The expanded Balsam voiceovers are mentioned on page 215. I originally cited 1976, but deleted it before the book went to print because I could not be certain. The key is to figure out when Six Mill first went into syndication. 1978 might be a likelier date.--Valor 17:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC) ::1978 would be my inclination as well. From a purely practical perspective, it would make sense to do this work after the primary business of producing new episodes was complete, yet prior to disbanding the team. I recall that these came out at the end, but before any real time had elapsed, ie in the months after the show finished while The Bionic Woman was still running. For whatever memory is worth, fragile that it is.-Major Sloan 00:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC) ::: It's weird that considering how sloppy Universal was in reediting WW&W and SGK, that they went the extra mile for the pilot. They could have had Brooks record the voiceover, but instead paid the money and got Balsam to do it. I initially thought the voice over was just leftover material from the pilot until the "three years later" reference at the end came up. 23skidoo 18:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC) ::::My sense is that this was deliberate. The original telefilm had respect, the others were treated as "problems." They made an effort to "de-Bondify" the Suspense Movies and conform them to the branding of the series, but there was little interest in investing time and effort. Remember that Harve Bennett, who had shepherded this property since 1974, was in the middle of a lawsuit with Universal as the shows wrapped, and so the studio made these changes without friendly supervision.--Major Sloan 20:04, October 23, 2009 (UTC) Episodic Airdates Recently, airdates for the episodic versions have been added for the original telefilms. This would be valuable information, sadly as it stands they are inaccurate. While my memory rejected these numbers out of hand, I tried to give the benefit of the doubt, yet the 1st telefilm's episodic version shows a December 74 air, an impossibility for a number of reasons. Footage is used from The Bionic Woman (episode) which aired 3/75, Martin E. Brooks is credited (and even appears in the O.R.), an actor who would not appear on the show until 9/75, and would not appear in the opening credits for a year after that. , etc. Brooks' presence in the opening puts it at least after The Return of Bigfoot in September of 1976. Finally, footage is used from Dark Side of the Moon, from November of 1977. So much for even being close. The Moon and the Desert is young, my friends. I think we can safely assume the 3 telefilms were done in order, therefore the others are even younger. The dates from http://www.pazsaz.com/million.html are bogus (at least for the episodic pilots). My memory is they came out as the show wrapped, in the timeframe of Season 5 (BW Season 3), perhaps fleshing out Season 5's shortfall while BW S3 continued. The timing of these releases are a worthy aspect of the show's history, unfortunately it will require more digging. --Major Sloan 22:21, 14 February 2008 (EST) :I think the broadcast dates of these padded, continuity destroying, marketing messes are as unimportant to this database as the movies themselves. Their creation was the result of making an easier syndication sale; 90 minute movies don't do well in a family of one hour blocks, so instead of cutting it down, they padded it out to 2 hours. Great! Seal 'em up and ship 'em out. I'm willing to bet that no producer, writer, or director ever consulted on the repackaging of these movies. As such they deserve no more than a place in trivia or in compare/contrast sections. — Paul (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC) ::If someone can find an indication that the three re-edits were ever broadcast by ABC, this is worth listing. But I agree they likely made their "debuts" in syndication. I know that's where I saw WWW and SGK for the first time in the late 70s. I never saw the Moon and the Desert version of the pilot until recently. I disagree with Major Sloan on the timing of the reedits. In all likelihood WWW and SGK were done early on, possibly while the show was still on the air, because they used an earlier version of the opening credits. It makes sense becaus Anderson and Oppenheimer were featured in the series proper, as opposed to Balsam and McGavin, so M&D was likely done much later, maybe at the same time they were reconfiguring Kill Oscar and Return of Bigfoot for syndication, too. 23skidoo 15:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC) :::I share Paul's disenchantment with the 2-hour versions. If getting any release wasn't so pie-in-the-sky at this point I'd be all for a fan campaign to get Home Video and its needs given the same level of attention the needs of syndication were given. I remember "The Deadly Replay" bothering me with that flight stick coming forward and waiting for years for the original pilot to come on to check my memory, and when it finally did, it was TMATD, which added the flight stick from TDR in!! I thought I was going crazy! My older cousin agreed, though, and at some point the "real" pilot came on finally, and all was good. WWW is actually pretty fun if you can see the original. Criterion collection, save us!! LOL. I'm all for combing through the 3 telefilm articles for syndie-cut references and migrating them to the comparison section, ie no OSI in the pilot or Forbin footage, etc. Still, by virtue of the passion (mostly negative) they have engendered amongst the fans, the dates should be recorded. :::As to airdates, I remain convinced that they aired just as the show was ending. IIRC once a week there was either a new ep or same-season rerun, and in another timeslot daily reruns of older seasons had started to air. It was in the latter slot these cropped up in when the newest "old" episodes ran out and normally would have wrapped back to Pop:Zero. As to the intro titles, if you look carefully you'll see that the same credits are used for all three with one exception: Martin E. Brooks' credit/shot is replaced by a matted shot of the M2-F2 with Alan Oppenheimer's credit superimposed- the only time Alan gets credit before the break. Otherwise it is the same Season 4/5 version with Richard Anderson on the red phone (which appeared in Season 4 at the same time as Martin E. Brooks). Whew! Time for a comparative article on the intro, I see.-Major Sloan 02:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC) :::::I wonder if the copyright dates on the syndicated versions might give some indication as to when they were circulated? I think The Bionic Book was a terrific piece of work, but it's a shame it doesn't include some of these little details. 23skidoo 16:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC) ::::::I guess I'm confused. The book contains the original airdates. Did you want it to include the dates of reruns? Perhaps I misunderstand you.--Valor 17:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC) :::::::Valor, we're just talking about the debut of the re-edits. The telefilms are well-documented here and elsewhere. As to the BB, mine got stolen along with my laptop :-@ I may get it again, after I cool off, I hate buying things twice.Major Sloan ::::::::I finally got another Bionic Book, pretty cool (I only got to flip through it briefly before my old one was snatched). The re-edits are mentioned in the first bullet point after the synopsis of the pilot on page 215, but no date is given as to their debut. Major Sloan 15:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC) :::::::::It's not in the book because the powers-that-be couldn't determine when Six Mill first went into syndication. In all likelihood, Balsam recorded the additional voiceovers the same year that the pilot went into syndication as a two-part episode. My guess is 1978.--Valor 00:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::Now I'm guessing: the powers-that-be = the various top people that were interviewed? Given the inclusive list, I'm guessing this info isn't available because naturally, the BB would be focused on the people who did the work, particularly the creative work of the shows, while the sale of the shows into syndication and other markets would be a business arrangement conducted by a separate limb of Universal, putting it out of the hands of said interviewees. Your thoughts?-Major Sloan 06:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Home video release question This is the first I've heard of the DiscoVision release of the pilot. Question: was it released in North America? And if so were other episodes released also? I ask because I was under the impression until now that the VHS release of the Bionic Woman 2-parter from the early 80s was the only North American home video release of any SMDM episodes. Obviously this is wrong if DIscoVision was North America. But if the pilot was the only release in that format too, it's worth noting in the article. 23skidoo 13:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC) :DiscoVison was also an MCA company -- the company that owned Universal. The two-parters, "Secret of Bigfoot" and "The Bionic Woman" were also released but edited into movies. Not sure if the BW print later became the VHS product. I've asked Matt to upload or send some hi res scans of the covers. I've uploaded standard images and out them into a gallery at DiscoVision. Some good reading here: http://www.blamld.com/DiscoVision/index.htm — Paul (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC) ::Since The Bionic Woman was released in movie form first in the DiscoVision, then the VHS release, then the PAL DVD release, it looks compelling that the film elements were conformed this way, else every release since the DiscoVision is using the same telecine. As with the alteration of the original telefilms, there is a real question as to whether the original edits can ever be recovered (at film quality) for a future remastering. Only Uni knows. --Major Sloan 19:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC) :::If it helps any, the BW VHS release didn't have any changed credits or anything, just the standard SMDM opening, and the cliffhanger/credits separating the parts removed. The cover, as I remember it, was very similar (possibly using the same photo) as the LP Bionic Woman: Great Adventures. 23skidoo 23:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC) ::::If you go to the "Bionic Woman Part II" page, you'll see examples of the short scenes that were snipped from the Universal DVDs as well as the late 1980s BW VHS tape. And fyi skid, I posted a jpeg of the VHS tape a few days ago in the "Part I" section.--Valor 00:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC) :::::So you did - I was right about the photo being the same as the record. 23skidoo 00:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC) ::::::One other thing: I bought my copy of the VHS tape in 1990 or '91, and it cost a pretty penny at the time. I don't remember it being available for purchase much earlier than that (certainly not the early 1980s).--Valor 00:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC) :::::::The only place I ever saw it was at a video store called Acme Video in Saskatoon, Canada, where I rented it. This would have been no later than 1990 and I remember they'd actually had the tape for some time before I got around to renting it. Was the JPEG you posted from your own copy? If it was, I suppose an easy solution would be to check it for a copyright date. 23skidoo 14:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC) ::::::::I do own a copy, but a friend of mine in NY borrowed it years ago and has yet to return it. I still think the "late 1980s" was the likely distribution date.--Valor 18:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC) :::::::::I bought mine in 97 or 98. Sleeve packaging is copyright 1996 but the VHS label itself is copyright 86 or 88 -- hard to make out, the print is so tiny. — Paul (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::I'd go with the 86-88 range. It couldn't be 1996 anyway because Acme Video was out of business by about 1991! ;-) 23skidoo 03:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::I've entered release as 86 and reissue as 96 in the Home Video Releases article. At http://www.bionicwomanfiles.com/links/video.htm The Bionic Woman Files is the most comprehensive release rundown I've seen, well worth a look. Between your comments and their info the dates seem consistent enough to include-Major Sloan 19:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Moonshot XYZ I'm puzzled by the entry in the film vs episodic section on the moonshot. This aspect of Steve's history was not shown in the original telefilm, which begins the morning of the lifting body accident. His experience is referenced only by Steve's line: "You know, Doc, out there, just before the sun comes up, it's almost like being on the Moon again. It kind of relaxes me." There is no conflict between versions as to the nature of that mission, as it is not shown and barely referenced in the original telefilm. To the extent it is referenced, the mission clearly involved a walk on the Lunar surface, as is supported by references in countless subsequent episodes. Perhaps the extra Martin Balsalm VO narration in TMATD has confused the writer, as clearly that audio was produced and not used for the original edit, unlike most of the footage the new narration is used over. Can anyone shed some light, as I'm tempted to delete this note, but would like some input before so doing. Major Sloan 03:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC) :The Mystery of the Six Million Dollar Man pilot strikes again! Honestly, more confusion crops up over the discrepancies between the original pilot and its syndicated counterpart -- mostly because the pilot is rare to find. So you're saying Balsalm's VO wasn't in the original? I can't recall one way or the other. If true, it certainly changes things. But this is why I love the wiki -- it's all about the research. :I have the two-disc DiscoVision release collecting dust somewhere. I guess it's about time I watched it again -- and took notes! For now, MJ, go ahead and remove the note. I have a feeling it won't be the only casualty after my viewing; this article is mostly a Deconstructed comparison between the two versions, anyway, and that's not the primary function of episode articles. — Paul (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC) ::The original ABC pilot did feature voiceovers from Martin Balsam, and the syndicated two-part version featured additional Balsam voiceovers (recorded years later) to help "stretch" 90 minutes into 120 minutes.--Valor 23:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC) :::Yes I'm sorry I wasn't more clear, Valor is absolutely correct. Basalm's VO in the original edit does not reference the Moonshot. Since the opening shot after the text in the original is of the HL-10 on the tarmac, none of the VO that leads to this scene in TMATD would exist in the earlier edit, nor is there any VO until after Steve sees his new arm. It does discuss his thoughts on what to tell Steve about his bionic transformation, e.g. "..he would be transformed into something that had never before existed- Cyborg; a reconstructed being capable of inordinate physical feats". :::In general, The Moon and the Desert expands the VO to become the glue of the story; The Six Million Dollar Man (Pilot) just resorts to it at key moments.Major Sloan 01:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC) The uncredited writers problem Valor has now tacked on a supporting document to the claim that Bochco was in on the writing of the pilot. But I wonder what the provenance of that article is. I also have to wonder why Bochco gets credit as a writer in the credit list but not at the top of the page, where the script is claimed as just being written by Simoun/Rodman. Moreover, why are the names RIchard Greene and Melvin Levy commonly attached to the project all over the internet? We could, I suppose, believe that it's just IMDB starting something that other people picked up on, but it's pervasive enough that it probably warrants our attention. CzechOut ☎ | 04:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC) :"Provenance" is a fairly pretentious word for an issue this small, but I'll play along. The document I submitted was an official MCA Universal call sheet distributed to ABC affiliates at the time the "pilot" was aired. I copied it (along with dozens of other call sheets from both bionic shows) at the Library of Congress several years ago while doing research for "The Bionic Book." Therefore, its "provenance" is quite legitimate. As for Mr. Bochco, my guess is that he didn't do enough original writing (or in this instance, re-writing) to qualify for an official, on-screen credit. The Writers Guild of America is very strict about these matters. Unless you contribute a certain percentage of original words, you will go unacknowledged. Regarding Greene and Levy, I've never seen anything official that ties them to this project, and IMDB is no stranger to factual errors. User:Valor ::In any event, credits will reflect the on-screen credits of the original pilot. Anything more, whether confirmed or speculated, is appropriate for the Trivia or Deconstructed sections. — Paul (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC) While doing research on IMDB today, I came across the name "Melvin Levy" who is listed in their database as an uncredited collaborator for the pilot screenplay. I don't know what the source or evidence for this is though. User:ToddPence (talk) Citation Needed I need confirmation (likely from the script) that there's a scene deleted, where children were playing a board game. I imagine if this ocurred anywhere in the movie, it would have been shortly before the scene with the car wreck. Perhaps we saw the boy playing the game, before his mother took him for a drive? This entry is based on hearsay, something that was passed along to me at one time. But I'm including it anyway, in case it turns out there is any validity to it. — redrain85 (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC) :Not in either edit of the movie. As to the script, that's a whole 'nother thing.--Major Sloan 20:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Correct title The term "Cyborg" should not be included in the title of this movie. While it was used for some of the print ads and TV promo spots (to better-connect it to the then-best selling book), the actual on-screen title is simply THE SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN. I have a (very worn) 16mm print and the original 1978 laserdisc, and both bear the correct SMDM title. I posted a cleaned-up title frame as an example of the pilot's original title design. — Matt (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC) :I'm willing to accept the title change if we can confirm that the first network broadcast was, indeed, The Six Million Dollar Man. — Paul (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC) ::Sorry, but I gotta side with Matt on this one. Check out the scans I posted. "Cyborg" is nowhere in the title. It's only referenced in the body of the TV review. The other scan comes from a flyer attached to the back of a photo which promoted the pilot. Again, they only refer to "The Six Million Dollar Man." :: :::Why are you sorry, Valor?--this is exactly what I asked for! A great example of the wiki community at work (just remember to indent your replies and sign your posts next time ;)). Awesome clippings, by-the-way! — Paul (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC) ::::Didn't want you to feel that you were being ganged up on. Simple disagreements can get out of hand.--Valor 18:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC) :::::I appreciate that. But I don't think we have anything to worry about. As long as we conduct ourselves in a mature manner and treat each other with respect, even our biggest disagreements can positive experiences. — Paul (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC) ::::::One caveat:ABC promos did use the word "cyborg" in the title. User:Valor ::::::Then there are these inconvenient truths, seemingly contradictory to what Matt said above: Image:MCADiscoVisionCyborgback.jpg|The back of the January 1979 laser disc release Image:MCADiscoVisionCyborgfront.jpg|The front of the same ::::::At the very least, between Valor's screen cap and these laserdisc images, I think there's enough evidence to suggest that MCA/Universal and ABC did consider Cyborg: The Six Million Dollar Man an "official" alternative title. CzechOut ☎ | 01:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC) :::::::Definitely fodder for the Deconstruction page. — Paul (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC) ::::::::I'm pretty sure Matt was referring strictly to what appeared on-screen, not the packaging. Since "cyborg" was never incorporated into the March 7 telecast (or subsequent laserdisc), that would make him correct.User:Valor :::::::::Kind of irrelevant and after the fact at this point, but Matt's original post included mention of the usage cited as disproving him. Read, please.--Major Sloan 05:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)